TEA Party: Enough Already!

The great "shellacking" of Congress was the long-awaited repudiation of Progressive policies under Obama. Yet Compromise remains a must for governance.

I supported the TEA Party call for cutting spending, limiting government, and reinstating Constitutional rule. Following the last election, this caucus' influence has drifted from the pragmatic to the problematic. In the last two election cycles, TEA Party activists have stifled successful primary candidates for the general election, and shoo-in Republicans lost. The GOP needs to link the Tea Party and the Establishment elements in this country.

We have seen the results of limited government libertarianism pushed to its limits: Barry Goldwater in 1964. In response to the majority of libertarians, the argument for less government must be replaced with more of something else. Goldwater's signature quote defines the trasformation of reform into self-righteous indignation:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

"Extremism" is a violation of liberty. "The pursuit of justice" can never be "moderate," nor should we center our lives on attaining justice at all costs. The final rendering in a case or a conflict cannot be the defining future of man.

A Republican representative government cannot be based on extreme approaches to anything, nor justice as a means or an end for everything. Just telling people that the government is not supposed to do anything creates more fear than regard. In their defense, the TEA Party movement has not advocated anarchy.

However, like Progressives of the early 20th Century and Libertarians of the '64 Goldwater variety, the acceptance of "imperfect but better" is eluding our national discourse. For Progressives, the state would adjudicate everything, a concrete version of Rousseau's "General Will." Libertarians want government removed entirely so that men and women can be led from within by their own will. The TEA Party has focused on cutting spending, but the proper vision and vitality of this country cannot be ignored or reduced to "let's go back," because Americans were forced to pay into entitlement programs, and they are entitled at least to get back what was paid in.

Goldwater lost by the largest margin for a Republican Presidential candidate in U.S. History. Romney's loss was not nearly as bad, but it was egged on by this notion by cut, cut, cut from conservative elements in the country. There is no cutting outright unless there is something to replace it. Life is more than fighting for one's rights, and the alarmism which sponsors populist vitriol to make a point vitiates at the same time.

I respect the TEA Party's respect for the Constitution and Limited Government. But just as Reagan's rhetoric about "Government is the Problem" could not excuse him from working within government, so too shouting "Taxed Enough Already" will not get the message through without accepting that even in the most secure and respected of stances on issues, compromise must play a part.

The primary challenges over the past two cycles have kicked out moderates or liberal Republicans who would have won. Granted, moderate Republicans like Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe favored spending, though not as much as the Democrats. Snowe worked with two other Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee (Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi) and three other Democrats to come up with something. The comity on that committee is sorely needed yet sorely lacking in Washington today. She also voted against Obamacare, a much-needed vote to block the rise of the state.

Our leaders must shrink the government, but not the citizenry. Our government must respect the Constitution, but the Constitution was put in place to help form a "more perfect union", not foster private, uncaring disunity. Government is instituted to protect our rights. The proliferation of rights by judicial, administrative, or legislative fiat is wrong, but the right to organize, to practice one's faith, to express one's opinion, to pursue happiness: those rights cannot be removed, and our government needs to protect them. As for "Big Government" or "Government Helping People", let the states and the cities do that job: they do it, and they do it better.

The TEA Party made their points in 2010, and now they have to allow their leaders to govern. The libertarian-progressive pursuit of the perfect or ideal candidate will nevercome. A minimal tax increase with real spending cuts is the best compromise for government in the near future. Only then if Democrats rebuff, then Republicans should no longer deal.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Arthur Christopher Schaper January 05, 2013 at 11:43 PM
"When you invent a strawman view of what a "Progressive" believes" "your rhetoric is so extreme" "you are creating a fantasy that is not representative of the real world." "commentary that is so extreme and inaccurate" Your use of "extreme" is extreme. I envision a field of strawmen going up in flames. William F. Buckley could not put it out, nor will I. I keep reading the term "You, you, you" I do not see the value in your getting personal. But since you mentioned Clint Eastwood: "Go ahead, make my day!" Take it easy, Greg!
Greg Davidson January 05, 2013 at 11:47 PM
There's a perfectly good conservative argument from The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith as to how market signals enable the coordination of many providers to come together and efficiently develop an integrated product such as a pencil. And there is abundant empirical data on how this actually works in the real world. No need for faith.
Arthur Christopher Schaper January 06, 2013 at 02:16 AM
I must also add -- my biggest concern with the TEA Party is the primary fights which have ended up turning reliably Republican seats to the Democrats. Mike Castle of Delaware would have been better than Chris Coons. Two other more qualified candidates would have won against Harry Reid in 2010. The Primary process needs some vetting. The conservative who is the most electable is much needed. I do not disparage the push for a balanced budget and cutting spending. The federal government cannot spend money beyond what the government takes in. This chronic cry of "extermism" ignores that our government is running up trillion dollar deficits annually. This is both extreme and immoral. It is also immoral to ignore this glaring problem with "TEA Party" Bashing, Bush-Bashing, or even Obama-Bashing.
Greg Davidson January 06, 2013 at 04:37 AM
I want to discuss the best ways to address problems facing our country - but to do so, it is necessary for our thinking to be grounded in reality. And so when conservatives make profoundly false assertions (such as "The federal government cannot spend money beyond what the government takes in" - something that the federal government has done every year for the last 5 decades except in the last two years of the Clinton Administration) the thinking that proceeds from such a faulty basis is a poor guide for policy. We agree that over the long term, annual deficits of $1T will be harmful. The appropriate question regards the best approach to ending the current situation. Here is where there is a difference between conservative/Austrian economics and what Keynes wrote. For Keynes, firms decide how much to produce based on their expectations of future sales. If economic growth is slowing, companies will believe that business will be bad in the next quarter, so they will cut expenses (by firing workers and putting off investments that could expand capacity). Unfortunately, those fired workers buy less, so more companies cut back, and the situation snowballs. Market behavior leads to a downward spiral, and under those circumstances, government stimulus changes the calculations of entrepreneurs. This is more than theory - in March 2009 Obama urged the EU nations to try stimulus. They chose austerity policies instead - and have averaged much worse economic growth than the US
Arthur Christopher Schaper January 06, 2013 at 09:11 PM
About the "failure" of austerity measures. The EU also doubled down on bailouts and spending and tax increases. Austerity must be nothing but, cutting spending is essential, with lower tax rates, which will bring in more revenues. The crisis of representative democracy is breaking out across the world. People want a lavish welfare state, but they do not want to pay for it. The "pay for it" is coming due. I really wonder if popular government can enact the necessary spending cuts and entitlement reforms which are needed. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R-Michigan) dispatched emergency managers to troubled cities and school districts to make the fiscally necessary but politically unpopular cuts. The first emergency manager law was repealed by proposition, but Snyder enacted another one.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »